In the United States v. Raynor case of 1937, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law prohibiting interstate transportation of stolen vehicles did not apply to an individual who had rented a car in one state and failed to return it as agreed upon in another state. The defendant, Raynor, was charged with violating this law after he rented a car in Washington D.C., drove it to Florida and then sold it without returning or paying for its use beyond the rental period. However, Justice Benjamin Cardozo argued that while Raynor's actions were fraudulent and constituted theft under local laws, they did not fall within the scope of federal jurisdiction because there was no evidence indicating that he intended to steal the vehicle at the time when he transported it across state lines.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Raynor, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping violated the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissenting justices contended that allowing such practices would set a dangerous precedent, undermining individual privacy rights and potentially leading to widespread abuses by law enforcement authorities. They maintained that any information obtained in this manner should be considered inadmissible as evidence in court proceedings due to its unconstitutional nature. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential infringements upon free speech if individuals felt their private communications could be monitored without proper legal safeguards or oversight.